Netflix To Cogent To World

While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting
chain of thoughts occurred to me.

If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth.

So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become...
and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering
fights?

Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?

Cheers,
-- jra
[1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy.

If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?

So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?

Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.

brandon

If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Did they not buy from Level 3 as well?

So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Because that's the business Cogent is in? Underprice everybody but the
buyer gets what he gets without any real recourse if it isn't good
enough. Good money as a bottom feeder as long as you don't make the
mistake of selling a dollar for fifty cents.

Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
peering is possible.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO

I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.

I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...

$0.02,
-a

With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:

Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

-P

Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.

(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)

...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:

With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:

Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach

Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point.

Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment
our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we
have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to
$NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!"

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is
about PR anyway...

If this is Comcast’s position, it is patently absurd. In 2005, I had several options available to buy transit from with reasonably good connectivity to >90% of the Internet’s eyeballs (eg: Level3, Global Crossings, NTT). While DT and China Telecom may have a huge presence in certain parts of the world — suggesting using them for general delivery in the USA.

As far as I am concerned, Netflix is sticking their neck out for the good of the internet here — and the don’t really have to. Netflix has money. Netflix has many pops. They can “just pay”. They can buy from whomever they have to. They can change their codecs however they need.

The “little guy” doesn’t have those options, and Netflix’s battle is really for their benefit.

-Phil

That answer seem overly simple: Comcast's answer was Comcast and Verizon's answer was Verizon... Seems that is what is occurring for both of these parties.

The debate has been over whether this is fair (keeping in mind that Netflix has a standing offer to peer at their own cost to any ISP with sufficient traffic levels). I can't blame these guys for wanting Netflix as a customer. After all, Netflix probably pays their bills on time and generate a lot of traffic which equates to a good revenue stream.

--Blake

Phil Rosenthal wrote the following on 7/23/2014 12:09 PM:

[snip]

Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?

Probably noone....... at least not without compromising and first
peering with Netflix.

It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart,
Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix,
Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com,
Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a
little club and said

"OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit
anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their
internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us
for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start
sending us your bids, now."

Any discussions among some subsets of those
named entities that may or may not have ever
occurred may have quickly stumbled across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_in_restraint_of_trade
and decided that colluding to form such a cartel
might potentially be a Bad Thing(tm), at which
point those discussions which may not have
indeed ever happened instead adjourned to
the bar for much safer forms of discourse.

Matt

I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were
options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to
using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and
that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a
pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add
capacity as you¹d expect.

Jason

Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic:

That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as the next killer app. Where other access providers would increase capacity, Comcast would see money in its eyes, or cite such dated metrics as traffic ratios as a fairness metric, all the while playing the victim with the press.

I don’t think I’m overly alarmist in these views; one need only look to the Tata situation (congested for multiple years), which was a textbook case of poor execution and damage control by all involved, as a recent example. Fool me once...

I almost wrote this a few weeks ago but decided not to - but
I've been saying it for a while now and maybe I'll write it
now.

The bridge between content owners and their customers is
service providers.

Those service providers are either wholesale transit
providers or consumer service providers.

Commercial trends have been moving farther and farther away
from, "How much bandwidth do you want to buy?" to, "How many
Tv channels, voice minutes and cloud recording can I get?",
particularly in much more developed markets. We see evidence
on this in the current transit prices being so low that now
selling in Gbps as a minimum might be the only way to
survive.

(very) Slowly but (very) surely, the service provider
(wholesale or consumer) is becoming a less visible part of
the chain (well, unless we are in the news talking about de-
peering or how much grief Netflix are causing us this week),
because eyeballs just want their "House of Cards".

There really is very little reason why certain major content
owners and providers who operate their own IP networks
cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's
(and in some cases, consumer ISP's).

As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act
together and play nice, before we all get run over by the
content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the
equation the first chance they get.

Mark.

There really is very little reason why certain major content
owners and providers who operate their own IP networks
cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's
(and in some cases, consumer ISP's).

As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act
together and play nice, before we all get run over by the
content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the
equation the first chance they get.

Yes and no…

The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it.

Much of the current consumer ISP infrastructure happens to be owned by content providers that Netflix is competing with. The rest is largely owned by other content providers that are attempting to compete with Netflix _AND_ the other content providers. ($CABLECOs (e.g. Cox, Time Warner, et. al.) in the former case and $TELCOs (e.g. FIOS, uVerse, et. al.) in the latter).

In the US, at least, both $CABLECOs and $TELCOs look more like law firms than communications companies if you analyze their business models. They seem to spend most of their time seeking ways to create a regulatory environment that favors them and disadvantages their competition rather than focusing on customer service and innovation to gain better profits. For the most part, their ability to do harm is somewhat limited by the fact that their interests largely run contrary to each other, so you have roughly equal forces fighting for legislation and rulings in roughly opposite directions.

Unfortunately, when they agree, it is almost certainly the consumer that loses and loses big.

The current situation with Netflix (and other content providers) is one such example. One of the few things they can agree on is that it is easier for them to try and extort money from content producers that compete with them than it is to change their business model to account for the true costs of providing what they promised.

One interesting thing about this in my opinion is that the worst consequence if they get their wish (the Slow Lane proposal, as I call it), the worst effect on consumers is an unintended side-effect. It will create an additional set of entry barriers for companies attempting to compete with Netflix and other content providers that have sufficient resources to pay the “exit the slow lane extortion”.

So not only is this bad for consumers by raising the cost of their content services by a factor of $ISP_EXTORTION+MARKUP, but it’s also bad for consumers by creating a new barrier to competition in an area of the market that was previously more open.

Owen

Note I said "...certain major...". For sure, not all
content owners have the might or time to become ISP's
(whether for themselves or for their customers). But
definitely, "certain major" ones do... and we are already
seeing bits of that, here and there in the world...

I can't predict the future, but if "certain major" content
owners/networks find the barriers to entry surmountable,
consolidation could close the loop (certainly, if money,
skill and effort wasn't my problem, this would be one of my
strategies).

And if the industry were go this way, I wouldn't expect to
see it coming. It would start small. Very small. No big bang
announcement or launch...

Mark.

We peer with Netflix directly on an exchange, and transit Level3, Cogent,
HE & TW.

In me experience, when our direct peer is down for whatever reason, Netflix
prefers Hurricane Electric no matter what - if the route is there, it takes
it - then Cogent, then Level3, then TW.

I agree that the Netflix team is responsive and easy to work with, and
again in my experience, their network team is extremely interested in
making things happen (despite what blogs & hearsay ...)

Randal

Well, it *is* in their best interests to make sure that every requested
packet gets out of Netflix's network (and/or CDN) as fast as possible. :slight_smile:

In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze Netflix
out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by the existing
content/ISP conglomerates to do just exactly that, no?

If not, then I am completely failing to understand you point.

Owen